Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds rich behavioral context beyond that: account and paid-plan requirements, parallel tool routing, gaps[] and contradictions[] semantics, latency expectations, citation resolvability, and semantic excerpting behavior. It thoroughly discloses what the agent should expect when invoking the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and long, but every section earns its place given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema. The critical account requirement is front-loaded, and the rest is information-dense rather than padded; it loses a point only because the wall-of-text structure could be easier to scan with bullet separation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers authentication, cost tiers, latency, output packet contents, citation guarantees, gap handling, contradictions, depth semantics, and exclusion cases. An agent has everything necessary to decide whether and how to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining the decomposition behavior for the 'question' parameter and by contextualizing the depth enum with hop counts, gap recovery, and contradiction scanning, which goes beyond the schema's per-value descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear, specific behavior: grounded multi-source research across 1497 structured data sources, decomposed into facets and routed in parallel. It explicitly differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx and from open-web search, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without needing to open additional schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, and also explicit when-not-to-use guidance: prefer ask_pipeworx for single lookups and for breaking/current news. It also details account tier requirements and when to choose each depth level, leaving little to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.